2011 in review

This year saw another increase in the AJP's impact factor from 0.36 in 2008 to 0.644 in 2010. Although the AJP continues to attract good submissions and has a relatively high rejection rate, non‐specialist journals such as the AJP will continue to face very stiff competition. The biggest challenge for the AJP is to raise its impact factor, but this should be seen in context. When considered against other national generalist journals, the position of the AJP seems fairly strong. For example, consider the data for the following journals: British Journal of Psychology = 2.17, International Journal of Psychology = 1.067, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science = 0.736, American Journal of Psychology = 0.58, South African Journal of Psychology = 0.386, and Japanese Psychological Research = 0.327. We need to maintain our upward impact factor trend. However, research reviews such as the Excellence in Research for Australia will make it tough for the Journal, and the reward systems in place in most universities will also work against the AJP and others like it with weaker than average impact factors. I am optimistic that good scrutiny of submissions and the continuation of high‐quality Special Issues will help lift the AJP's profile.

Typically, 2011 was a good year for the AJP when measured with respect to the breadth and depth of published articles. The March issue contained several fascinating studies drawn from a number of well‐known and ground‐breaking Australian and overseas longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies are shedding new light on social, emotional, health, and personality development, and the overall contribution of Australian longitudinal studies to this important literature over the last decade or so has been impressive. Articles in the special issue were drawn from the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort Study (van Eekelen et al., 2011), the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort (Badcock et al., 2011), the Australian Temperament Project (O'Connor et al., 2011), a Norwegian longitudinal study (Karevold, Coplan, Stoolmiller, & Mathiesen, 2011), the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (Sanson, Smart, & Misson, 2011), and the Mater University Study of Pregnancy (McGee et al., 2011).

The remainder of the 2011 articles in the AJP spanned the breadth of the discipline with one article on emotional intelligence (Gardner, Qualter, & Whiteley, 2011) and an interesting article by Slocum and colleagues in which they presented a theory of apology (Slocum, Allan, & Allan, 2011). It is also fitting that the AJP published an article on improving the psychological critical thinking skills of university students (Haw, 2011). Most of the remainder of the articles were in the areas of clinical psychology/psychological well‐being (e.g., Koschade & Lynd‐Stevenson, 2011; Toumbourou, 2011; Trickey, Farhall, Wertheim, Hinch, & Ong, 2011), but there were also articles on human development (e.g., Zimmer‐Gembeck, Lees, & Skinner, 2011), experimental psychology (e.g., Zajac & Burns, 2011), organisational psychology (e.g., Park, Park, & Dubinsky, 2011), and health psychology (Wilson & White, 2011). The AJP therefore makes a very important contribution to the broad spectrum of psychological science in this country and abroad.

Finally, this is my last editorial as I'll be stepping down as editor of the AJP at the end of 2011. Thank you to the authors who have continued to support the AJP through their high quality submissions, and thank you to a great group of associate editors for their commitment, dedication, and enthusiasm. It has been a pleasure working with you all. I would also like to thank Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) and Jessica Grisham (University of New South Wales) who have decided to step down at the end of 2011. Thank you to both of them for their support and very positive contributions to the Journal. Two new associate editors should be in place by the start of 2012. I wish the new editorial team of the AJP all of the best.